Daily Archives: October 22, 2014

NSA: Samsung Knox Devices Safe for Classified Info

Posted: October 22, 2014 at 1:48 am

Several Galaxy devices (and the Boeing Black phone) received NSA approval to carry classified information.

A number of Samsung mobile devices have been cleared by the National Security Agency for use by U.S. government officials.

The Galaxy S5, S4, Note 4, and Note 3 smartphones, plus the Note 10.1 tablet, among others, received NSA approval to carry classified information, provided they are running Samsung's secure Knox enterprise suite.

Boeing's self-destructing Black smartphone (not to be confused with the Blackphone) also made the list.

"The inclusion of Samsung mobile devices on the ... list proves the unmatched security of Samsung Galaxy Devices supported by the Knox platform," CEO JK Shin said in a statement. "At Samsung, we continue to address today's increasingly complex security challenges, and are committed to delivering the most reliable mobile platform satisfying the needs of professionals in all industries."

Samsung Knox, introduced last year, provides Samsung devices with a corporate controlled "container," much like BlackBerry Balance. The Department of Defense approved Knox in May 2013, and Samsung struck a deal with mobile security firm Lookout last September to bolster the security of Android devices running Knox.

By December, however, researchers found a "critical vulnerability" in Knox, which they said could enable "easy interception of data communications." The following month, Samsung said the researchers "did not identify a flaw or bug in Samsung Knox or Android, [but] a classic Man in the Middle (MitM) attack, which is possible at any point on the network to see unencrypted application data."

In May, Samsung released its Galaxy S5 smartphone with Knox 2.0; the update includes an improved user experience and new tools for SMBs.

The next month, five Knox-installed Galaxy phones and tablets received approval from the U.S. Defense Information Systems Agency.

Such approvals are increasingly necessary in a bring-your-own-device (BYOD) environment. Gone are the days when people had a BlackBerry for work and an iPhone or other smartphone for personal use. People don't want to carry two gadgets around, so IT departments have had to add support for more popular devices. In industries that deal with classified or sensitive information - from banking to the military - super-secure services like Knox are intended to avoid data leaks and prying eyes.

Read the original post:
NSA: Samsung Knox Devices Safe for Classified Info

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on NSA: Samsung Knox Devices Safe for Classified Info

Agents questioned, Askar takes the Fifth in Trombetta hearing

Posted: at 1:48 am

PITTSBURGH -- An evidence suppression hearing for Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School founder Nick Trombetta will stretch into November after another day of arguments Monday was more notable for who did not testify than for who did.

Beaver County solicitor Joe Askar, who also represents the Rochester-based National Network of Digital Schools, invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and refused to testify. Askar was subpoenaed by Trombettas defense team in their effort to get recorded conversations with attorneys, including him, tossed out by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti.

Trombetta -- who faces 11 federal charges -- is claiming that the FBI violated his attorney-client privilege by recording discussions with Askar, former PA Cyber attorney Timothy Barry, and Ralph Monico and Leo Daly, attorneys who also represented NNDS. A Sept. 30 hearing was continued until Monday.

Mr. Askar has neither committed nor been charged with any crime. Nor will he be. As the U.S. Supreme Court has said, the privilege is available not only to protect the guilty, but also the innocent: We have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendments basic functions is to protect innocent men, who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances, Bruce Teitelbaum, Askars attorney, said in a statement.

The ambiguities inherent in this complex matter and the possibility of misunderstanding compelled me, out of caution, to advise Mr. Askar to invoke his privilege, Teitelbaum said.

Barry was called to the stand by defense attorney Adam Hoffinger later in the day, but was excused after a lengthy off-the-record sidebar involving his attorney, Trombettas lawyers and prosecutors. Hoffinger said Barry would be recalled when the hearing continues next month.

Trombetta attorney Robert Salerno quizzed FBI agent Samantha Bell, the lead investigator, on synopses of calls monitored by agents, instructions to agents on recording calls and minimization, the FBIs name for when agents stop listening to calls that are irrelevant or might be protected by attorney-client privilege.

After Barry was excused, FBI agent Paul Allen took the stand and was questioned by Hoffinger on a June 2012 synopsis of a recorded call on which he noted that Trombetta would be talking to his attorney.

Hoffinger wondered how agents could know when to stop recording privileged communications if they truly did not know whether Trombetta had a personal attorney. Allen said he did not exactly remember, but testified that he might have simply written the note to be cautious.

Im not sure why I used the personal pronoun his, Allen said. I didnt mean anything by it.

See the original post:
Agents questioned, Askar takes the Fifth in Trombetta hearing

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off on Agents questioned, Askar takes the Fifth in Trombetta hearing

Scott and Crist have heated and personal final debate before November election

Posted: at 1:48 am

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35 ORLANDO) -

Both former Governor Charlie Crist and current Governor Rick Scott turned up the heat in their final debate before the election, with both men making it clear they do not like each other and both men taking multiple opportunities to attack their opponent over personal wealth and other issues. One repeatedly called the other by first name before taking their jabs.

On personal character and ethics

Crist employed the same type of attacks he has used on television about Scott, pointing to his tenure at HCA/Columbia, a hospital chain which was fined $1.7 billion for Medicare fraud. Crist repeated a line from one of those ads, saying that Scott once invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination while questioned about an unrelated civil lawsuit.

Rick you talk about being accountable. How were you accountable with HCA at all? asked Crist.

Scott raised questions about associates of Crist, including Scott Rothstein, who was convicted and imprisoned for masterminding one of the state's largest Ponzi schemes, and Jim Greer, the disgraced former chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, who served time after pleading guilty to theft and money laundering.

"Scott Rothstein testified, under oath, that Charlie was paid to appoint judges," said Scott. "His hand-picked party chairmen went to prison."

On raising the minimum wage and job creation

One issue the pair returned to was the minimum wage. Scott and Crist were on opposite sides of this issue like many others.

The private sector determines wages," said Scott. "Let's look at actually what happened. When Charlie says he wants to raise the minimum wage, that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would lose $500,000 jobs. Charlie, you lost 832,000 jobs when you were governor. How many more jobs can we lose?

Continue reading here:
Scott and Crist have heated and personal final debate before November election

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off on Scott and Crist have heated and personal final debate before November election

Supreme Court oral arguments Heien v North Carolina – Video

Posted: at 1:47 am


Supreme Court oral arguments Heien v North Carolina
The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments regarding our fourth amendment in the case of Heien v. North Carolina. Listen to the case yourself.

By: DailyWorldwideNews

Read more:
Supreme Court oral arguments Heien v North Carolina - Video

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on Supreme Court oral arguments Heien v North Carolina – Video

When Can the Police Search Your Phone and Computer?

Posted: at 1:47 am

Your computer, phone, and other digital devices hold vast amounts of personal information about you and your family. This sensitive data is worth protecting from prying eyes, including those of the government.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects you from unreasonable government searches and seizures, and this protection extends to your computer and portable devices. But how does this work in the real world? What should you do if the police or other law enforcement officers show up at your door and want to search your computer?

EFF has designed this guide to help you understand your rights if officers try to search the data stored on your computer or portable electronic device, or seize it for further examination somewhere else. Keep in mind that the Fourth Amendment is the minimum standard, and your specific state may have stronger protections.

Because anything you say can be used against you in a criminal or civil case, before speaking to any law enforcement official, you should consult with an attorney. Remember generally the fact that you assert your rights cannot legally be used against you in court. You can always state: "I do not want to talk to you or answer any questions without my attorney present." If they continue to ask you questions after that point, you can say: "Please don't ask me any further questions until my attorney is present." And if the police violate your rights and conduct an illegal search, often the evidence they obtain as a result of that search can't be used against you.

We've organized this guide into three sections:

If you consent to a search, the police don't need a warrant.

The most frequent ways police are able to search is by asking you for permission. If you say "yes" and consent to the search, then police don't need a warrant. You can limit the scope of that consent and even revoke or take it back after the officers begin searching, but by then it may be too late.1 That's why it's better not consent to a searchpolice may drop the matter. If not, then they will generally need to get a search warrant to search.

Law enforcement may show up at your door. Apart from a few exceptions, police need a warrant to enter your home.

The police can't simply enter your home to search it or any electronic device inside, like a laptop or cell phone, without a warrant.

See original here:
When Can the Police Search Your Phone and Computer?

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on When Can the Police Search Your Phone and Computer?

Supreme Court to decide if cops can access hotel registries without warrants

Posted: at 1:47 am

The Supreme Court is weighing in on another Fourth Amendment privacy case, this one concerning a Los Angeles ordinance requiring hotels to surrender guest registries to the police upon request without a warrant.

Thejustices agreed(PDF) Monday to hear Los Angeles' appeal of a lower court that ruled7-4 that the lawmeant to combat prostitution, gambling, and even terrorismwas unconstitutional. The law(PDF) requires hotels to provide the informationincluding guests' credit card number, home address, driver's license information, and vehicle license numberat a moment's notice. Several dozen cities, from Atlanta to Seattle, have similar ordinances.

"The Supreme Court will consider both the scope of privacy protections for hotel guests and also whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits laws that allow unlawful searches," EPIC wrote. "The second issue has far-reaching consequences because many recent laws authorize the police searches without judicial review. Thus far, courts have only considered "as applied" challenges on a case-by-case basis."

The appeal is the third high-profile Fourth Amendment case the justices have taken in three years.

In 2012, the justices ruled that authorities generally need search warrants when they affix GPS devices to a vehicle. And earlier this year, the Supreme Court said that the authorities need warrants to peek into the mobile phones of suspects they arrest.

In the latest case,Los Angeles motel owners sued, claiming that the law was a violation of their rights. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the motel owners in December and said the only documentsthey must disclose include a hotel's proprietary pricing and occupancy information.

Businesses do not ordinarily disclose, and are not expected to disclose, the kind of commercially sensitive information contained in the records, Judge Paul Watford wrote for the majority. He said a hotel has "the right to exclude others from prying into the contents of its records."

In dissent, Judge Richard Clifton wrote that neither the hotel nor the guest has an expectation of privacy."A guest's information is even less personal to the hotel than it is to the guest," Clifton said.

In arguing to the justices that they should review the majority's conclusion, Los Angeles city officials wrote(PDF), "These laws expressly help police investigate crimes such as prostitution and gambling, capture dangerous fugitives and even authorize federal law enforcement to examine these registers, an authorization which can be vital in the immediate aftermath of a homeland terrorist attack."

Thehigh court did not set a hearing date.

Original post:
Supreme Court to decide if cops can access hotel registries without warrants

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on Supreme Court to decide if cops can access hotel registries without warrants

Not everyone agrees with the second amendment. – Video

Posted: at 1:47 am


Not everyone agrees with the second amendment.
Not everyone agrees with the second amendment.

By: LoneStar1776

Read the original:
Not everyone agrees with the second amendment. - Video

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Not everyone agrees with the second amendment. – Video

Second amendment shouldn't infringe on our other freedoms

Posted: at 1:47 am

This week a prominent feminist was forced to cancel lectures at USU because of a threat made on her life.

Well, that's oversimplifying it, you see, Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist noteworthy for her comments on the portrayal of women in video games, had every intention of going through with the speech except for one minor hiccup, the state of Utah's gun laws.

According to Utah law, the government can't stop anyone from bringing a gun to a concealed event. So. although our second amendment rights are protected, there's no guarantee of any security at pretty much any event.

Although the university promised to provide security, how can anyone feel safe if you can't legally take a gun from someone.

Does the right to carry a concealed weapon outweigh the safety of someone who simply wants to speak their mind on an issue.

The threat on Sarkeesian was one of gun violence, so why couldn't we put away our guns for one day to hear an individual express their opinions, as protected by the first amendment.

Yes, many gun owners are responsible, and that guns in hands of honest citizens can in some cases make us safer.

I'm also not saying protecting the second amendment is bad, but can we at least find a compromise somewhere.

Are there lives worth protecting that we are willing to occasionally give up our weapons for?

Even gun owners understand the sacrifices we must make for safety of others.

See original here:
Second amendment shouldn't infringe on our other freedoms

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Second amendment shouldn't infringe on our other freedoms

Daines knows Montanans care about their weapons

Posted: at 1:47 am

Posted: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:45 am

Daines knows Montanans care about their weapons

I am glad to see Congressman Steve Daines strong support of our Second Amendment rights. He is an outdoorsman and sportsman that knows the residents of Montana care about their guns.

Amanda Curtis fails in comparison with her well-below F rating from The Montana Shooting Sports Association and historic F from the NRA. I am disappointed that she would come out and say she is pro-gun when she voted against our Second Amendment rights 23 out of 24 times during her time in the state Legislature.

The facts are right there, and despite what Amanda Curtis says, she is far from pro-gun. Someone with this stance does not accurately represent Montanans.

The difference is clear between these two candidates. We need to stand with Steve Daines, who will protect our rights to bear arms.

- James Burke, Libby

Posted in Letters to the editor on Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:45 am.

Read more here:
Daines knows Montanans care about their weapons

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Daines knows Montanans care about their weapons

1st Amendment – Constitution – Laws

Posted: at 1:47 am

First Amendment: Religion and ExpressionWhat is the First Amendment?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.The First Amendment Defined:The First Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 1st Amendment:The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the passing or creation of any law which establishes a religious body and directly impedes an individuals right to practice whichever religion they see fit.The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights and the amendment which disables an entity or individual from practicing or enforcing a religious viewpoint which infringes on the freedom of speech, the right peaceable assemble, the freedom of the press, or which prohibits the petitioning for a governmental evaluation of grievances.In its infancy, the First Amendment only applied to laws enacted by Congress; however, the following Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court developed that the Due Process Clause attached to the Fourteenth Amendment applies the fundamental aspects of the First Amendment to each individual state, including all local governments within those states.The Establishment clause of the First Amendment is the primary pronouncement in the Amendment, stating that Congress cannot institute a law to establish a national religion for the preference of the U.S. government states that one religion does not favor another. As a result, the Establishment Clause effectively created a wall of separation between the church and state. How the First Amendment was created:When the original constitution was created there was significant opposition due to the lack of adequate guarantees for civil freedoms. To offer such liberties, the First Amendment (in addition to the rest of the Bill of Rights) was offered to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789 and later adopted on December 15, 1791.Court Cases tied into the 1st AmendmentIn Sherbert v. Verner, the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard of review to the Establishment Clause, ruling that a state must demonstrate an overwhelming interest in restricting religious activities.In Employment Division v Smith, the Supreme Court went away from this standard by permitting governmental actions that were neutral regarding religious choices.Debs v. United States on June 16, 1919 tested the limits of free speech in regards to the clear and present danger test.1st Amendment: Freedom of SpeechFreedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment and is re-established in the majority of state and federal laws. This particular clause typically protects and individuals right to partake in even distasteful rhetoric, such as racist or sexist comments and distasteful remarks towards public policy.Speech directed towards some subjects; however, such as child pornography or speech that incites an imminent threat, as well commercial forms of speech are regulated.State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of RightsNew Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article IIMaryland:December 19, 1789; approved allNorth Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved allSouth Carolina: January 19, 1790; approved allNew Hampshire: January 25, 1790; rejected article IIDelaware: January 28, 1790; rejected article INew York: February 27, 1790; rejected article IIPennsylvania: March 10, 1790; rejected article IIRhode Island: June 7, 1790; rejected article IIVermont: November 3, 1791; approved allVirginia: December 15, 1791; approved allGeorgia, Massachusetts and Connecticut did not ratify the first 10 Amendments until 1939

First Amendment: Religion and ExpressionWhat is the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment Defined: The First Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.

The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.

Stipulations of the 1st Amendment: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the passing or creation of any law which establishes a religious body and directly impedes an individuals right to practice whichever religion they see fit.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights and the amendment which disables an entity or individual from practicing or enforcing a religious viewpoint which infringes on the freedom of speech, the right peaceable assemble, the freedom of the press, or which prohibits the petitioning for a governmental evaluation of grievances.

In its infancy, the First Amendment only applied to laws enacted by Congress; however, the following Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court developed that the Due Process Clause attached to the Fourteenth Amendment applies the fundamental aspects of the First Amendment to each individual state, including all local governments within those states.

The Establishment clause of the First Amendment is the primary pronouncement in the Amendment, stating that Congress cannot institute a law to establish a national religion for the preference of the U.S. government states that one religion does not favor another. As a result, the Establishment Clause effectively created a wall of separation between the church and state.

How the First Amendment was created: When the original constitution was created there was significant opposition due to the lack of adequate guarantees for civil freedoms. To offer such liberties, the First Amendment (in addition to the rest of the Bill of Rights) was offered to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789 and later adopted on December 15, 1791.

The rest is here:
1st Amendment - Constitution - Laws

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on 1st Amendment – Constitution – Laws